Ultimate fighters ask streaming sites to unmask uploaders

The Ultimate Fighting Championship has subpoenaed two video streaming sites in …

Ultimate fighters are the type of people you don't usually want to anger, but a couple of rogue uploaders have officially tempted the fate bear. The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) has subpoenaed two popular video sites in hopes of getting the identities of users who have been uploading UFC's pay-per-view fights, but whether the sites will fork over the information is another question.

UFC's parent company Zuffa is actually behind the subpoenas and is going after the anonymous users uploading the PPV content to justin.tv and ustream.tv. UFC claims that 36,000 people watched a live streaming feed of one of its PPV events on January 2, followed by another fight uploaded by the same user two months later that got 78,000 "non-paying users" watching.

The company says that this kind of behavior results in a significant loss of revenue and, in a rather unsurprising statement, UFC President Dana White declared, "This is a fight we will not lose."

The UFC claims that it sent the subpoenas because of the DMCA, though it's unclear whether the company also sent the mandated DMCA takedown notices to ustream.tv and justin.tv before resorting to a subpoena. Streaming sites have become intimately familiar with the DMCA takedown process over the years—it would be surprising if the sites in question did not respond to UFC's takedown requests.

Now that the deed is done, however, we can't help but wonder whether justin.tv and ustream.tv will hand over the users' information or try to fight the subpoenas. We also have to wonder what UFC thinks it's achieving by going after individual uploaders—there are a million more where they came from, but perhaps the company hopes that legal action against these individuals will scare others away.

UFC, justin.tv, and ustream.tv did not respond to our request for comment by publication time.

Live-streaming an entire copyrighted program is absolutely illegal, as would be re-posting the entire program on something like YouTube. But the tone of the article seems pretty dismissive of the UFC's efforts here. It doesn't matter if there are only two uploaders and there are potentially millions of others willing to do the same: these two have broken the law. Is the UFC not entitled to identifying these two individuals?

The UFC is in an interesting position. Streaming live events means they need some sort of automated takedown system. Otherwise they need these companies to have staff for takedowns posted around the clock - it can't wait until Monday morning, by then everyones watched the event for free.

Live-streaming an entire copyrighted program is absolutely illegal, as would be re-posting the entire program on something like YouTube. But the tone of the article seems pretty dismissive of the UFC's efforts here. It doesn't matter if there are only two uploaders and there are potentially millions of others willing to do the same: these two have broken the law. Is the UFC not entitled to identifying these two individuals?

I agree. Besides this the only thing UFC should do is allow live pay per view streaming on their websites to areas where traditional pay per view watching is not in place.

Live-streaming an entire copyrighted program is absolutely illegal, as would be re-posting the entire program on something like YouTube. But the tone of the article seems pretty dismissive of the UFC's efforts here. It doesn't matter if there are only two uploaders and there are potentially millions of others willing to do the same: these two have broken the law. Is the UFC not entitled to identifying these two individuals?

I'm dismissive of their efforts because it's bad business. Even if they're able to get the names of the persons involved, it cost the UFC approximately 4 million dollars (assuming every stream is a lost sale) in total revenue for those two PPV events (At 40 bucks per event).

This should only be a single instance of infringement, which means (as I understand it) that the maximum fine is approximately 150 thousand dollars. That's bad business.

Live-streaming an entire copyrighted program is absolutely illegal, as would be re-posting the entire program on something like YouTube. But the tone of the article seems pretty dismissive of the UFC's efforts here. It doesn't matter if there are only two uploaders and there are potentially millions of others willing to do the same: these two have broken the law. Is the UFC not entitled to identifying these two individuals?

The law is the law and the law mandates that a takedown notice be sent. There are procedures to follow and they have not followed them.

Google's lawyers at youtube know exactly what their company's obligations are under the law.

1) The metrics of the DMCA don't work well with streaming sites, as the provider doesn't have to immediately take down content, rather they only must work "expeditiously" to do so. And many are weary of doing so at all without giving a chance for the poster to respond or take it down themselves, or at least reviewing the request to make sure it is in compliance with DMCA. With UFC streaming content normally posting outside of normal business hours, and usually being 'one and done' before the next business day, only a really good automated system would be appropriate, as forcing a provider to employee live human judges to work evening hours would be a burden. And a really good automated system would be nearly impossible to create with current technology.

1b) I suspect that the someone going through lengths to provide a high quality stream will also be taking measures to hide their location - making it nearly impossible at easy or accurate identification.

2) The market has obviously decided that $45 per fight is way too high (same price as the cheapest physical ticket?). So UFC has basically failed at setting a suitable price point for online streaming, and the market has decided "free" is a much better way to go. (and let's not even get started on being locked into Silverlight).

2) The market has obviously decided that $45 per fight is way too high (same price as the cheapest physical ticket?). So UFC has basically failed at setting a suitable price point for online streaming, and the market has decided "free" is a much better way to go. (and let's not even get started on being locked into Silverlight).

At any price point, there will be those that pay and those that don't. That's true of any product. The existence of customers unwilling to pay a given price is not evidence that the price is too high (that's as foolish as saying that the price is too low because some people actually paid it). Depending on the elasticity of the price, $45 could be optimal or suboptimal (too high or too low). There is insufficient evidence here to determine that.

I was also bothered by the tone of this article. I am all in favor of not suing fans, but I think we need to frame this a bit differently than other arguments because of the streaming aspects.

The UFC proactively works with Youtube to make sure their content is removed when people upload their copyrighted material. As far as I have heard they have never attempted to find out the identity of an uploader, let alone sue them.

At the same time, when they have an event going on live and they have made the event available any number of ways including traditional pay-per-view, Yahoo internet PPV and also free at participating bars and restaurants like Buffalo Wild Wings, I don't quite understand why they shouldn't be allowed to try and protect their profits via shutting down illegal streams.

I also know for a fact that on multiple occasions that illegal streams of their events have been shut down in the middle. To assume that the UFC never sent DMCA take down notifications with details like this available is also lazy. Maybe the streams got overloaded and just quit, but isn't it reasonable to assume that the UFC might have just as likely worked through appropriate channels to get the offending streams shut off?

To paint this with the same broad brush strokes that have been used to describe Metallica and Uwe Boll seems dismissive and lazy.

I don't know the specifics for the UFC fights, but both UStream and Justin.tv seem to be very responsive to takedown notices. While they were reliable sources for out of market NHL games at the beginning of last season, by the end of the season it was nearly impossible to find a stream for a whole game. I can understand the PPV angle for UFC's anger. However, I still don't understand why NBC was so desperate to keep livestreams of their programming buckled down. I would have thought free rebroadcasting would simply expand the number of people who get to see their ads considering there's no lost subscriber base for OTA television.

2) The market has obviously decided that $45 per fight is way too high (same price as the cheapest physical ticket?). So UFC has basically failed at setting a suitable price point for online streaming, and the market has decided "free" is a much better way to go. (and let's not even get started on being locked into Silverlight).

At any price point, there will be those that pay and those that don't. That's true of any product. The existence of customers unwilling to pay a given price is not evidence that the price is too high (that's as foolish as saying that the price is too low because some people actually paid it). Depending on the elasticity of the price, $45 could be optimal or suboptimal (too high or too low). There is insufficient evidence here to determine that.

I'd go further and say that with only 36,000 people watching the first show via these streams might imply the price is too low. If the price truly were above the profit maximizing level, you'd think there would be a much larger black market.

You answered your own question: "We also have to wonder what UFC thinks it's achieving by going after individual uploaders—there are a million more where they came from, but perhaps the company hopes that legal action against these individuals will scare others away. "

Dana White has said that very thing. In fact, it was something to the effect of, "People won't stop doing this until somebody goes to jail." He's right. Also, there really can't be a million more because someone needed to purchase the event in order to stream it. If the event doesn't get 1M PPV buys, then there can't be that many streaming it live. Semantics? Yes. But, this leads me to...

Why they're fighting the live streaming is simple: the live event is when the content is the most valuable. Afterward, it declines in value, just like when you drive a new car off the lot. This "value" is what the UFC needs to protect. It's also not something you can put a price tag on. It's significantly more valuable than the $4M they may have lost (mind you, they didn't). This is probably why they aren't going after torrents. They've most likely learned from the RIAA and MPAA that it's a losing battle.

I don't see anyone doing this (yet) here, but anyone who justifies theft by touting the price should really look in the mirror and do some soul searching. It's tantamount to taking your neighbor's 65" TV because you can't afford one of your own.

Live-streaming an entire copyrighted program is absolutely illegal, as would be re-posting the entire program on something like YouTube. But the tone of the article seems pretty dismissive of the UFC's efforts here. It doesn't matter if there are only two uploaders and there are potentially millions of others willing to do the same: these two have broken the law. Is the UFC not entitled to identifying these two individuals?

I'd have to say that the article is dismissive of how effective this lawsuit will be on stemming the tide of people viewing their content illegally. It's not going to accomplish anything, so why waste all the time and money? See RIAA, MPAA, et al.

I was also bothered by the tone of this article. I am all in favor of not suing fans, but I think we need to frame this a bit differently than other arguments because of the streaming aspects.

The UFC proactively works with Youtube to make sure their content is removed when people upload their copyrighted material. As far as I have heard they have never attempted to find out the identity of an uploader, let alone sue them.

At the same time, when they have an event going on live and they have made the event available any number of ways including traditional pay-per-view, Yahoo internet PPV and also free at participating bars and restaurants like Buffalo Wild Wings, I don't quite understand why they shouldn't be allowed to try and protect their profits via shutting down illegal streams.

I also know for a fact that on multiple occasions that illegal streams of their events have been shut down in the middle. To assume that the UFC never sent DMCA take down notifications with details like this available is also lazy.

The article never makes this assumption, as indicated by the statement that it's 'unclear whether the company also sent the mandated DMCA takedown notices to ustream.tv and justin.tv before resorting to a subpoena.' and that 'UFC, justin.tv, and ustream.tv did not respond to our request for comment by publication time.' It seems that the article writer doesn't know if the DMCA notice was sent, which is reasonable, since I'm unaware of any way of finding out other than asking the sender or receiver of the notice and they didn't reply to questions (yet).

I agree that it's a lazy assumption though, and that those in this comment thread who have made it are making a mistake. I also think that those who believe the article to be making this mistake have not paid sufficient attention to the actual text of the article.

2) The market has obviously decided that $45 per fight is way too high (same price as the cheapest physical ticket?). So UFC has basically failed at setting a suitable price point for online streaming, and the market has decided "free" is a much better way to go. (and let's not even get started on being locked into Silverlight).

At any price point, there will be those that pay and those that don't. That's true of any product. The existence of customers unwilling to pay a given price is not evidence that the price is too high (that's as foolish as saying that the price is too low because some people actually paid it). Depending on the elasticity of the price, $45 could be optimal or suboptimal (too high or too low). There is insufficient evidence here to determine that.

I'd go further and say that with only 36,000 people watching the first show via these streams might imply the price is too low. If the price truly were above the profit maximizing level, you'd think there would be a much larger black market.

agreed, also to figure lost revenue what % of the 36,000 would have paid to watch a fight had it not been free.

There's a lot of things I'll do for free that I wouldn't pay for. Shakespeare in the park with my girlfriend for example. If I had to pay to watch that sorry example of dramatic arts... sorry... /rant

I'd go further and say that with only 36,000 people watching the first show via these streams might imply the price is too low. If the price truly were above the profit maximizing level, you'd think there would be a much larger black market.

There probably is... they're the people watching the fights "tape delayed" via torrents and such. If you've ever seen any of these streams you should know that they're largely crappy and unreliable. So I'd wager a lot of people just wait an hour or two for other sources to become available. Plus, these streams more or less limit themselves due to the limits of the server providing the stream. At some point additional people just can't get connected.

[edit] I'm not trying to promote piracy here, just pointing out that the black market you speak of is likely much larger than the few that managed to watch the event via these two sites.

If the site's runners are uploading the videos, Dana should go after the site, not the people watching the videos. If the site's users are uploading the videos, Dana should go after the uploaders. I'd support going after the users is this situation as well as possibly the viewers because with streamed videos, no one should be watching the event that does not have access to pay-per-view for a limited time/is at the event, period. There's no question of ownership here.

Live-streaming an entire copyrighted program is absolutely illegal, as would be re-posting the entire program on something like YouTube. But the tone of the article seems pretty dismissive of the UFC's efforts here. It doesn't matter if there are only two uploaders and there are potentially millions of others willing to do the same: these two have broken the law. Is the UFC not entitled to identifying these two individuals?

I'd have to say that the article is dismissive of how effective this lawsuit will be on stemming the tide of people viewing their content illegally. It's not going to accomplish anything, so why waste all the time and money? See RIAA, MPAA, et al.

This case appears quite distinct from the RIAA and MPAA cases. UStream and Justin.tv are significantly different services than bittorrent or rapidshare. This is more akin to Comcast or Dish Network cracking down on illegal cable hookups and fake satellite subscriber cards.

Live-streaming an entire copyrighted program is absolutely illegal, as would be re-posting the entire program on something like YouTube. But the tone of the article seems pretty dismissive of the UFC's efforts here. It doesn't matter if there are only two uploaders and there are potentially millions of others willing to do the same: these two have broken the law. Is the UFC not entitled to identifying these two individuals?

I'd have to say that the article is dismissive of how effective this lawsuit will be on stemming the tide of people viewing their content illegally. It's not going to accomplish anything, so why waste all the time and money? See RIAA, MPAA, et al.

This case appears quite distinct from the RIAA and MPAA cases. UStream and Justin.tv are significantly different services than bittorrent or rapidshare. This is more akin to Comcast or Dish Network cracking down on illegal cable hookups and fake satellite subscriber cards.

Agreed -- this case is different than the RIAA and MPAA cases (live streaming vs. BitTorrent.....Fight!). The point that I was trying to convey is that the outcome of these cases will be the same = people will still view their content illegally.

I'd go further and say that with only 36,000 people watching the first show via these streams might imply the price is too low. If the price truly were above the profit maximizing level, you'd think there would be a much larger black market.

There probably is... they're the people watching the fights "tape delayed" via torrents and such. If you've ever seen any of these streams you should know that they're largely crappy and unreliable. So I'd wager a lot of people just wait an hour or two for other sources to become available. Plus, these streams more or less limit themselves due to the limits of the server providing the stream. At some point additional people just can't get connected.

[edit] I'm not trying to promote piracy here, just pointing out that the black market you speak of is likely much larger than the few that managed to watch the event via these two sites.

For events of the same type as these UFC fights, the value of the broadcast diminishes very quickly with time. Any time delay greater than the length of the fight will severely diminish the value of the show. With the exception of some very few, very memorable sports events, rebroadcasts aren't highly valued, even amongst those who did not see the original broadcast. Sporting events are much like movies that rely upon mysteries or plot twists, if you know how it ends, it's not that exciting or suspenseful.

I'd be surprised if the quality of the broadcasts was that low. The out of market NHL games that I watched on the sites were usually at least standard YouTube quality. They weren't 1080p, but they were usually still above SD resolutions.

Back to the original point, there is certainly not enough data to make the conclusion that $45 is too high of a premium for UFC to charge for their PPV content. This is especially true considering how many places offer free (as in beer) access to the content legally.

I would say that UFC either sends the takedown notices, or the sites involved actively monitor their streams. I base that on having looked around at some of the streams when I couldn't make it out to one of the very numerous locations that broadcast it for free (Hooters, Buffalo Wild Wings, and many local bars/restaurants). UFC offers it streaming on their website as well if I remember correctly, so they're doing what they can, but the pricepoint is too high for the event on a streamed format. If you received a copy after or something, I could see it, but I could never justify PPV events (wrestling, boxing, etc) anyway, especially given that so many places offer it free if you just get a drink or something ($50 vs $1.99+tax) makes it a pretty easy decision to me.

Sports corporations just have to realize that the days of easy money from sleazy practices like overpriced pay-per-view and blackouts are over. Live streaming is only going to get easier. Professional sports have been severely overpriced for a long time, and I have a feeling that feeling of being ripped off is going to translate into a whole lot of piracy.

For events of the same type as these UFC fights, the value of the broadcast diminishes very quickly with time. Any time delay greater than the length of the fight will severely diminish the value of the show. With the exception of some very few, very memorable sports events, rebroadcasts aren't highly valued, even amongst those who did not see the original broadcast. Sporting events are much like movies that rely upon mysteries or plot twists, if you know how it ends, it's not that exciting or suspenseful.

Heh... you wouldn't know that from the prices they charge to watch the replays! Anyway, what you say is true, but it's a bit naive to think people aren't doing that. And UFC results are very easy to avoid finding out on accident.

Quote:

I'd be surprised if the quality of the broadcasts was that low. The out of market NHL games that I watched on the sites were usually at least standard YouTube quality. They weren't 1080p, but they were usually still above SD resolutions.

I can't speak for the two specific events in question, but the streams I've seen on sites like justin.tv were terrible. After chasing down dead and fake links for a while, I finally wound up on crappy streams that inevitably died at some point leaving me to chase down another. My guess is that a standard NHL game is fairly limited in popularity so maybe you haven't run into the same sort of issues you might with a live PPV stream.

Can someone explain to me the difference between streaming it on the internet and going to a local bar and watching it there? You know... using that same "non-paying" brush he's using.

From what I understand, a lot of the bars that broadcast it have to pay more than the standard PPV fee. A google search would tell you more, but the first result I found was $1000-$4000 (although, that sounds exoribitant and outdated.)

For events of the same type as these UFC fights, the value of the broadcast diminishes very quickly with time. Any time delay greater than the length of the fight will severely diminish the value of the show. With the exception of some very few, very memorable sports events, rebroadcasts aren't highly valued, even amongst those who did not see the original broadcast. Sporting events are much like movies that rely upon mysteries or plot twists, if you know how it ends, it's not that exciting or suspenseful.

Heh... you wouldn't know that from the prices they charge to watch the replays! Anyway, what you say is true, but it's a bit naive to think people aren't doing that. And UFC results are very easy to avoid finding out on accident.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they're not doing that, I just think they're completely different market equations. To use a movie comparison again, you don't worry about bittorrent copies of movies in your attempts to stop people from sneaking into your theatre without paying. They're both problems relating to unauthorized movie watching, but your handling of one is pretty much independent of the other.

Can someone explain to me the difference between streaming it on the internet and going to a local bar and watching it there? You know... using that same "non-paying" brush he's using.

From what I understand, a lot of the bars that broadcast it have to pay more than the standard PPV fee. A google search would tell you more, but the first result I found was $1000-$4000 (although, that sounds exoribitant and outdated.)

I would think that the majority of bars that show PPV events haven't paid anything above the standard price of $45 or whichever. How would they be caught?

Can someone explain to me the difference between streaming it on the internet and going to a local bar and watching it there? You know... using that same "non-paying" brush he's using.

The bars authorized to show it have a cover charge. I assume the UFC gets part of that cover charge.

$45 is expensive for a single person to watch, but most people I know get a whole group of friends together.

Quote:

I would think that the majority of bars that show PPV events haven't paid anything above the standard price of $45 or whichever. How would they be caught?

1) they need to advertise the event on their website to attract patrons2) UFC reads their website3) as a business with capitol, they actually have quite a lot to lose should they be found out

Even if they don't advertise on their website, there's significant risk that someone related to the UFC (or the cable company) will squeel on them. Bars are under frequent scrutiny by authorities already (IRS watching like a hawk to make sure they pay their liquor taxes, sting ops to test if they're selling to minors, local cops getting called on drunk patrons all the time), so running an illegal rebroadcast of a pay-per-view seems like a rather risky proposition.

Can someone explain to me the difference between streaming it on the internet and going to a local bar and watching it there? You know... using that same "non-paying" brush he's using.

From what I understand, a lot of the bars that broadcast it have to pay more than the standard PPV fee. A google search would tell you more, but the first result I found was $1000-$4000 (although, that sounds exoribitant and outdated.)

I would think that the majority of bars that show PPV events haven't paid anything above the standard price of $45 or whichever. How would they be caught?

When the installer comes by and sees it isn't a residential install, they won't install it until you pony up for the business package. Most businesses aren't going to run the risk of hefty fines and potentially losing their business by trying to pull some tricks.

I did some checking for DirecTV and the NFL Sunday ticket runs $315 for residential customers and $994 for business serving up to just 50 customers. A WWE package is $2160 for the year for the same number of customers.

As you can see, businesses pay quite a bit more for events than that little $45-$50. There's the difference between streaming and watching at a bar.

I would think that the majority of bars that show PPV events haven't paid anything above the standard price of $45 or whichever. How would they be caught?

They get caught because if they are showing the pay-per-view they have to let people know about it. When some venue that hasn't paid the fees to the UFC is found out by Buffalo Wild Wings that has paid the license, they get reported to the UFC who will dispatch a lawyer.

Buffalo Wild Wings promotes the UFC events like crazy and they are usually rewarded with really big crowds at the more popular events. They end up selling food and drink for about four straight hours to a packed bar. They will be happy to report any venue that is leaching off of their potential business.

I would think that the majority of bars that show PPV events haven't paid anything above the standard price of $45 or whichever. How would they be caught?

1) they need to advertise the event on their website to attract patrons2) UFC reads their website3) as a business with capitol, they actually have quite a lot to lose should they be found out

Even if they don't advertise on their website, there's significant risk that someone related to the UFC (or the cable company) will squeel on them. Bars are under frequent scrutiny by authorities already (IRS watching like a hawk to make sure they pay their liquor taxes, sting ops to test if they're selling to minors, local cops getting called on drunk patrons all the time), so running an illegal rebroadcast of a pay-per-view seems like a rather risky proposition.

Fair enough -- but I was thinking more along the lines of non-chain bars -- they don't really advertise (only by word of mouth), and the Satellite (Dish or DirecTV) is subscribed to the owners home address and just installed in their bar (so no one knows that it's a bar subscribing to the PPV event). It's very easy to install a STB and point the dish yourself.

I'm guessing that my line of thought is in the minority now -- I remember watching the first few Wrestlemania's back in the day at my local bar (which allowed me as a kid in to watch) and I know they didn't pay any extra to show it....I guess it's not as prevalent now as it used to be.

I would think that the majority of bars that show PPV events haven't paid anything above the standard price of $45 or whichever. How would they be caught?

1) they need to advertise the event on their website to attract patrons2) UFC reads their website3) as a business with capitol, they actually have quite a lot to lose should they be found out

Even if they don't advertise on their website, there's significant risk that someone related to the UFC (or the cable company) will squeel on them. Bars are under frequent scrutiny by authorities already (IRS watching like a hawk to make sure they pay their liquor taxes, sting ops to test if they're selling to minors, local cops getting called on drunk patrons all the time), so running an illegal rebroadcast of a pay-per-view seems like a rather risky proposition.

Fair enough -- but I was thinking more along the lines of non-chain bars -- they don't really advertise (only by word of mouth), and the Satellite (Dish or DirecTV) is subscribed to the owners home address and just installed in their bar (so no one knows that it's a bar subscribing to the PPV event). It's very easy to install a STB and point the dish yourself.

I'm guessing that my line of thought is in the minority now -- I remember watching the first few Wrestlemania's back in the day at my local bar (which allowed me as a kid in to watch) and I know they didn't pay any extra to show it....I guess it's not as prevalent now as it used to be.

I'm sure there are bars that do that. However, as has been mentioned, if a bar in my hometown advertises they're having UFC night, the Applebees in town is probably going to send a little note the UFC's way to have them verify their competitors are paying full price because it's a cheap and easy way to bully around the competition.

2) The market has obviously decided that $45 per fight is way too high (same price as the cheapest physical ticket?). So UFC has basically failed at setting a suitable price point for online streaming, and the market has decided "free" is a much better way to go. (and let's not even get started on being locked into Silverlight).

Goodness.

The market didn't decide that the price is too high...the market just found a way to get what it wanted for free. It'd be like stacking a $20K car up against a free variant and saying that the market has decided that $20K is too much to pay for a car. Well, yeah! With few exceptions, if given the choice, we would prefer to pay less for the same product. That doesn't mean that UFC is doing anything wrong here.

Brendino is wrong in my opinion. I used to pirate music. Then it became easier and cheap enough to find when iTunes came around years ago. So in the last 7 years or so I've actually paid for music because it's cheap enough and easy to find.

On the flip side, I have paid the $45 for around 20 UFC matches over the years. I've had to tone it down though, because they come at such a relentless pace now. The price would need to drop before I started buying the majority of them now. Since I don't see them as much now, I'm losing interest in the sport, and I see a day where I no longer care to even buy one per year.